Allahabad High Court
Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65778
Reserved on 24.04.2025
Delivered on 29.04.2025
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7684 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Bhanu Pratap Singh,C.S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner, while working as Incharge Headmaster of Senior Basic School Badauwa, Block Manda, Tehsil Koraon, District Allahabad, has suffered with a disciplinary inquiry and a charge sheet was issued containing various charges, however, the main allegation was that on an inspection of School, not only petitioner was found absent but there were complaint that in his place a proxy Teacher took classes and his signatures were also found on copies of students.
2. Disciplinary Authority found the above allegations as well as some other allegations to be proved and punishment of termination from service was awarded to petitioner. An appeal against order of termination as well as review filed by petitioner were also rejected. During proceedings of appeal, petitioner was called and asked some basic questions, such as simple mathematics questions, but he was not able to answer it and even he was not able to tell name of course books.
3. Sri Satish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently argued that due procedure prescribed for conducting departmental inquiry, specifically, where major punishment is proposed, was not followed and even the charge of absence from School and teaching by proxy Teacher, despite found partly proved in inquiry report, was considered to be proved by Disciplinary Authority, without any other basis. Proxy Teacher was not found taking classes and copies of students were also not placed on record where allegedly proxy Teacher has put his signatures. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025(1) ESC 16 (SC) and this Court's judgments in Sohan Lal vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another (Writ-A No. 43331 of 2000), decided on 11.01.2013; State of U.P. and others vs. Ashtebhuja Mishra and another, 2017(9) ADJ 373 (DB) (LB); and, Brij Bhushan Maurya vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021(4) ADJ 370 (DB).
4. Per contra, Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, Advocate appearing for Respondents-2, 3 and 4, has supported the impugned orders that there were very serious charges against petitioner that in place of him a proxy Teacher took classes and put his signatures on copies of students, therefore, it was sufficient to terminate services of petitioner as well as that principle of natural justice was followed during inquiry since petitioner was granted sufficient time and opportunity to place his case and despite summons and repeated opportunities said proxy Teacher did not appear during appellate or review stage.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is well settled that the Court normally does not interfere with departmental inquiry, except where the procedure prescribed was not substantially followed or finding returned was not based on evidence on record or on the proved charge, if the punishment awarded shocks conscious of the Court, i.e., highly disproportionate. It is also not under much dispute that if the charge that in place of petitioner some proxy Teacher took classes and put signatures on copies of students, was proved, it would be sufficient to impose punishment so awarded, i.e., termination of services.
7. Charge sheet dated 12.01.2015 has mentioned following charges:
" 1. दिनांक 29/11/2014 को 2.20 बजे निरीक्षण के समय विद्यालय से अनुपस्थित थे।
2. अपने स्थान पर श्री यमुना प्रसाद (प्राक्सी टीचर) से रू० 3000 देकर अध्यापन कार्य कराना।
3. विद्यालय का कोई भी अभिलेख अवलोकित न कराना।
4. छात्र नामांकन एवं छात्र उपस्थिति अत्यन्त न्यून पाया जाना।
5. शैक्षिक गुणवत्ता अत्यन्त न्यून पाया जाना।
6. श्रीमती जयश्री वली के विद्यालय अनुपस्थित रहने के उपरान्त भी पूरे दिनों का हस्ताक्षर कराना।
7. विद्यालय परिसर अत्यन्त गन्दा पाया जाना।
8. अध्यापक आचरण सेवा नियमावली के विरूद्ध कार्य करना।"
8. The inquiry report dated 20.02.2015 found Charges No. 1, 4 and 5 to be proved, whereas Charges No. 2 and 6 were found to be partly proved, consequently Charge No. 8 was also found proved. As referred above, Charge No. 2 is that in place of petitioner a proxy Teacher took classes. Relevant details of charges, reply of petitioner and its report, as mentioned in inquiry report, are reproduced hereinafter:
क्रम सं०
आरोप
श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी का अभिकथन
आख्या
दिनांक 29/11/2014 को 2.20 PM पर खण्ड शिक्षा अधिकारी माण्डा के द्वारा किये गये निरीक्षण में अनुपस्थित पाया जाना।
श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी ने अपने अभिकथन में यह अवगत कराया कि वह MDM का कागज लेकर N.P.R.C. गये थे साक्ष्य के रूप में इनके द्वारा N.P.R.C. की आख्या व लाग बुक की छाया प्रति प्रस्तुत की गयी है।
विद्यालय बन्द करके कोई सूचना या अभिलेख पहुँचाना उचित नहीं है। यदि सूचना पहुँचाना अति आवश्यक था तो बच्चों के शिक्षण की व्यवस्था करके जाना चाहिए था या सूचना किसी अन्य माध्यम से पहुँचायी जा सकती थी।
अपने स्थान पर श्री यमुना प्रसाद (प्राक्सी टीचर) से रू० 3000/- देकर अध्यापन कार्य कराना।
श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी ने अपने अभिकथन में उक्त आरोप को निराधार बताया है।
स्थलीय निरीक्षण में श्री यमुना प्रसाद प्राक्सी टीचर तो नहीं मिले किन्तु छात्रों से पूछताछ करने पर यह पाया गया कि उनको अधिकांश विषय श्री यमुना प्रसाद के द्वारा ही पढ़ाया जाता है और बच्चों की उत्तर पुस्तिका में उनके हस्ताक्षर भी पाये गये जिससे इस आरोप की पुष्टि होती है।
3.
विद्यालय में कोई अभिलेख अवलोकित न कराना।
इस आरोप के सम्बन्ध में श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी ने अवगत कराया कि जब वह मौके पर उपस्थित ही नहीं थे तो अभिलेख कैसे दिखाते।
श्री तिवारी का अभिकथन सत्य प्रतीत होता है।
4.
छात्र नामांकन एवं छात्र उपस्थिति अत्यन्त न्यून पाया जाना।
श्री तिवारी ने अपने अभिकथन में अवगत कराया कि गांव अत्यन्त छोटा है जिसके कारण नामांकन कम हुआ है। छात्र उपस्थिति कम पाया जाना गलत है।
निरीक्षण में यह पाया गया कि विद्यालय में कुल छात्र नामांकन 43 है जबकि निरीक्षण के समय 8-9 छात्र मौजूद पाये गये। श्री तिवारी छात्र उपस्थिति कम होना स्वयं गलत बताया है किन्तु उपस्थिति बढाने का प्रयास नहीं किया गया।
5.
शैक्षिक गुणवत्ता अत्यन्त न्यून पाया गया।
श्री तिवारी ने मौखिक गुणवत्ता न्यून पाया जाना सम्बन्धी आरोप तथ्य से परे बताया है।
स्थलीय निरीक्षण में बच्चों से पूछताछ की गयी। उत्तर पुस्तिकाए देखी गयी जिससे यह स्पष्ट हुआ कि वास्तव में बच्चो का शैक्षिक स्तर ठीक नहीं है।
6.
श्रीमती जयश्री वली स०अ० के विद्यालय से अनु० रहने के उपरान्त भी पूरे दिनों का हस्ताक्षर कराना।
श्री तिवारी ने अपने अभिकथन में यह अवगत कराया कि जब भी जयश्री वली विद्यालय से अनुपस्थित रही है उन्हे अनु० किया गया है साक्ष्य के रूप में इनके द्वारा उपस्थिति पंजिका की छाया प्रति प्रस्तुत की गयी है।
श्रीमती जयश्री वली ने विद्यालय आने के सम्बन्ध में छात्रों से पूछताछ की गयी। बच्चों ने बताया कि वह नियमित रूप से विद्यालय आती है। किन्तु जयश्री वली से शिक्षक डायरी मांगी गयी तो उन्होनें ऐसी किसी डायरी की जानकारी होने से ही मना किया। कौन सा विषय किस घंटे में उनके द्वारा पढाया जाता है यह भी वह नहीं बता पायी। इससे उनके विद्यालय कम आने की सम्भावना प्रतीत होती है।
विद्यालय परिसर गन्दा पाया जाना।
श्री तिवारी ने अपने अभिकथन में यह अवगत कराया कि जब विद्यालय बन्द था तब गन्दगी कैसे देखी गयी।
निरीक्षण के समय विद्यालय परिसर साफ सुथरा पाया गया। किन्तु यह कहना कि बाहर से गन्दगी कैसे देखी गयी उचित नहीं है क्योकि परिसर तो देखा ही जा सकता है।
अध्यापक आचरण नियमावली के विरूद्ध कार्य करना।
श्री तिवारी ने अवगत कराया कि किन उपबन्धों के अधीन सब आरोप लगाया गया है स्पष्ट नहीं है।
क्रमांक 1,2,4,5,6 की पुष्टि के बाद यह आरोप स्वयं पुष्ट हो जाता है।
9. The Disciplinary Authority after considering reply to inquiry report come to conclusion that Charge No. 2 was completely proved, though it was accepted that alleged proxy Teacher was not found at the time of inspection, however, on copies of students his signatures were found. In the said order, it was wrongly mentioned that in inquiry report Charges No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were completely proved and only Charge No. 6 was proved in part, whereas Charge No. 2 was also found proved in part in inquiry report. Relevant part of punishment order dated 18.03.2015 is reproduced hereinafter:
" उक्त के आलोक में श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी द्वारा अपना स्पष्टीकरण दिनांक 13.03.2015 को उपलब्ध कराया गया तथा आरोपित बिन्द 2 में लगाये गये आरोप को पूर्णतः असत्य तथा निराधार बताया गया, परन्तु श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी द्वारा उक्त के सम्बन्ध में कोई साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया है. जिससे यह पुष्टि हो सके कि आरोपित बिन्दु-2 असत्य एवं निराधार है, क्योंकि जांच अधिकारी द्वारा आरोप-2 के सम्बन्ध में जो जांच आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी है उसमें उल्लिखित किया गया है कि स्थलीय निरीक्षण में श्री यमुना प्रसाद प्राक्सी टीचर तो नहीं मिले किन्तु छात्रों से पूँछताँछ करने पर यह पाया गया कि उनको अधिकांश विषय श्री यमुना प्रसाद के द्वारा ही पाढाया जाता है और बच्चों की उत्तर पुस्तिका में उनके हस्ताक्षर भी पाये गये जिससे इस आरोप की पुष्टि होती है तथा उक्त के अतिरिक्त जांच अधिकारी द्वारा आरोपित बिन्दु 1, 4, 5, 6 को भी पुष्टित किया गया है।
श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी को जिस कार्य हेतु विभाग/ शासन द्वारा नियुक्त किया गया था उसके इतर अपने स्थान प्राक्सी टीचर (PROXY TEACHER) नियुक्त कर विद्यालय से गायब रहते थे तथा विद्यालय में पठन-पाठन का कार्य प्राक्सी टीचर (PROXY TEACHER) से कराया गया, जो शिक्षक की गरिमा के विरुद्ध है। इनके इस कृत्य से विद्यालय में छात्र नामांकन अत्यन्त न्यून और अध्ययनरत छात्र-छात्राओं की शैक्षिक गुणवत्ता भी प्रभावित हुई है। इस प्रकार श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी के ऊपर लगाये गये आरोपों के सम्बन्ध में उनके द्वारा कोई तथ्यपरक साक्ष्य एवं स्पष्टीकरण उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया और श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी के ऊपर आरोपित बिन्दु 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 की पुष्टि जांच अधिकारी द्वारा की गयी है. जिसके फलस्वरूप श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी को पूर्णतः दोषी मानते हुए जनहित एवं छात्रहित में श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी की सेवा तत्काल प्रभाव से समाप्त की जाती है।"
10. The appeal filed by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.11.2015 that said charge was proved. During proceedings some simple questions were asked, however, petitioner was not able to give correct reply, such as, he was not able to reply the question about name of books of subject Mathematics and Sanskrit and he was not able to cite any Poem in Hindi or English. Relevant part of appellate order dated 04.11.2015 is reproduced hereinafter:
" समीक्षा
जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी की आख्या, अपीलार्थी श्री राजेश्वर प्रसाद तिवारी पूर्व कार्यवाहक प्र०अ० उच्च प्रा०वि० बदौआ मांडा इलाहाबाद द्वारा प्रस्तुत सेवा समाप्ति अपील और सुनवाई के समय उनके द्वारा किये गये अनुरोध से प्रथम दृष्टया स्पष्ट हो रहा है कि श्री तिवारी विद्यालय में प्राक्सी टीचर द्वारा विद्यालय का पठन पाठन कार्य लेते रहने के दोषी पाये गये हैं और स्पष्ट आधार एवं साक्ष्य तथा सेवा समाप्ति पूर्व अपना पक्ष समुचित रूप से प्रस्तुत किये जाने का अवसर का उपयोग कर चुके है। जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी इलाहाबाद ने विधिवत जांच और अपीलार्थी को सुनवाई की अवसर प्रदान किया है और आरोपों की पुष्टि के पश्चात ही सेवा समाप्ति आदेश संख्या 1162/2014-15 दिनांक 18.03.2015 निर्गत किया है जिसमें किसी संशोधन की आवश्यकता नहीं है।"
11. Similarly, review application of petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2017 and relevant part thereof is also mentioned hereinafter:
"समीक्षा
श्री तिवारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत पुर्नविचार प्रत्यावेदन दिनांक 15.03.2016, सुनवाई के समय उनके एवं अन्य पक्षों के मौखिक एवं लिखित बयान तथा जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी की आख्या से निम्नलिखित स्थिति स्पष्ट होती हैः-
1- जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी इलाहाबाद की आख्या दिनांक 16.04.2015 में इस बात का स्पष्ट उल्लेख है कि प्राक्सी टीचर के हस्ताक्षर बच्चों की उत्तर पुस्तिकाओं पर उपलब्ध था।
2- पुनः सुनवाई दिनांक 09.02.2017 को श्री तिवारी ने उन किताबों के नाम भी बता पाने में असमर्थता जतायी जो उन्हे कक्षा में पढाना अपेक्षित था।
3- उचित होगा कि उनको प्रदत्त दण्डादेश में कोई परिवार्तन न किया जाय़।"
12. During above proceedings, alleged proxy Teacher, Sri Yamuna Prasad, was also called but he did not appear.
13. As referred above, principle of natural justice was substantially followed, therefore, allegation that petitioner was not granted proper opportunity, has no basis and it is hereby rejected. The best defence of petitioner, i.e., the statement of alleged proxy Teacher was not recorded since despite summons he has not appeared.
14. In the inspection report dated 24.12.2014, the Block Education Officer has recorded that during inspection it was found that in place of petitioner a proxy Teacher, namely, Sri Yamuna Prasad was found teaching, however, said report was found to be contrary to record as the inquiry report as well as orders impugned, have specifically recorded that during inspection proxy Teacher was not found teaching in place of petitioner though it was told by the students that a proxy Teacher used to take classes.
15. The Court takes note that in case signatures of proxy Teacher were found on the copies of students, it was sufficient to prove the said charge. However, in inspection report no such averment was recorded, except that students told that they have been taught by proxy Teacher, Sri Yamuna Prasad. Copies of students were never produced either before Inquiry Officer or at appellate or review stage. Therefore, without perusal of it and since it was not mentioned in inspection report, it cannot be said that copies were signed by alleged proxy Teacher, Sri Yamuna Prasad.
16. It is well settled that standard of proof in departmental inquiry is preponderance of probability. However, even to reach such conclusion, there must be some material, but in the present case except an averment made in inspection report that students have told about proxy Teacher, no other evidence was brought on record and even copies of students were not brought on record. Therefore, on such nature of evidence, the said charge could not be proved and, therefore, punishment of termination appears to be highly disproportionate.
17. In aforesaid circumstances, so far as other allegations are concerned, petitioner was able to satisfy the reason for his absence from School at the time of inspection as well as so far allegation with regard to absence of other Teacher is concerned, no action was taken against her. Standard of education was found to be below average and for that endeavours are required not punishment of termination.
18. The Court also takes note that petitioner was not able to answer some basic questions during appellate proceedings, however, only on that ground punishment of termination would not be justified. In this regard Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by this Court in Atendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:59088 wherein similar allegations were made and relevant part of judgment is reproduced hereinafter:
"12. The inspection was conducted on basis of a complaint purportedly submitted by the villagers. However, said document as placed on record is not signed by any villagers, whereas the petitioner has submitted various documents along with the Appeal such as a letter of Village Educational Committee that he had discharged his duties as teacher diligently, a letter having signatures of villagers that no complaint was ever filed against him. However, the said documents were not even taken note of by the Appellate Authority, as such an illegality was committed.
13. Similarly, a letter of the Principal wherein he has denied allegations and stated that petitioner has regularly took classes was also not considered. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal in a legal way and has ignored material documents submitted by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has given more importance, that he was not able to state names of books of Class V, but that cannot be a sole ground that he was not discharging his duties diligently ignoring above referred documents.
14. In the above background, the Court also takes note that there was a valid reason for the petitioner to leave the school on the fateful day to attend his wife as well as that he has already put signatures on the register on the said date and has submitted an application for leave."
19. The Court also takes note that when this writ petition was filed, petitioner was aged about 58 years, therefore, now he must have crossed the age of superannuation. Still, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case inquiry is vitiated. As discussed above, materials were not sufficient to prove charges against petitioner even on anvil of preponderance of probability, specifically charge of teaching by a proxy Teacher, as well as that Court is also of the opinion that punishment awarded was disproportionate since Charge No. 2 was not proved so much as that such punishment could be awarded. All above issues were not considered by the Appellate Authorty and has given more emphasis that petitioner could not give reply to very fundamental questions, which was not warranted in present case, considering nature of material to prove charges.
20. Court also takes note that there is limited scope of causing interference in departmental inquiry but if the due procedure was completely violated or erroneously returned a finding not based on evidence on record or a finding of fact was based on no evidence, it could be treated an error of law and interference could be caused, as occurred in present case (See, The State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592).
21. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.03.2015 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad as well as orders dated 04.11.2015 and 18.04.2017 passed by Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three months from today, taking note of above observations.
Order Date :- 29.04.2025
AK
